SacredCowSlayer » October 5th, 2016, 3:42 am wrote:For now I'll go ahead and state my suspicion that the purpose of MM is to get people arguing at length (or dare I say, for Miles?) about what the Math(is). I know I've had enough PI(e) filling to last me a lifetime from this character.

There's no way to know if he/it is authentic, but I'm unwilling to abandon my instincts. And those tell me there's something wrong here. I suppose time will tell if I'm right.

Well that didn't take long.

With a lack for time to be completely thorough here, I'll just go ahead and point out the plainly obvious. That is, for whatever "good" he may do exposing psy ops, he simultaneously and deliberately discredits him(it)self with "roundy round junk science" and engages in forum disruption via the enthusiasm in which his fans have been inspired to push his stuff.

I'm not saying his fans are necessarily doing this in bad faith. And I'm willing to extend some benefit of the doubt to those who genuinely got caught up in it. It happens.

Regardless, it has the effect of being yet another DBA along the lines of FE. I'm glad to see this chapter come to a close. It has been painful to watch, but I think necessary to allow an organic exposure of what's going on.

Thanks to our new member Vera Obscurata (VO from now on if that's okay) for taking the time to read through the material and make the NASA link.In hindsight I should have seen it. But they don't call it hindsight for nothing.

And Simon, don't beat yourself up. I'm actually glad to see someone else catch it for a change.This process demonstrates the need for careful participation from thoughtful members, and the wise moderation thereof.

Also, it's times like this where I miss Painterman. He could always peg the exact forum disruption tactics with precision, and I enjoyed reading his layout of such. But I digress.

It would appear that MM gives a lot of truth away re his psy op articles, but does so in order to subtly run cover for space travel and nukes among perhaps other things. Plus he sets up genuine researchers for criticism by his voluminous pant-load of Math(is).

I'm sure I've missed some of the points of his purpose, but I don't think I'm far off.

Last edited by SacredCowSlayer on October 11th, 2016, 1:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Seneca's excellent possibility "to maintain the acceptance of the scientists" gave me the following idea:

- the first papers by Mathis (whoever he is or are) are about art, the topic closest to his passion- then he went to write 2 "breakthrough science" books and published a whole lot of work on his idea of "the electrical universe" and as a spin-off the "pi=4" crap- he started his hoax papers around 2012, with first the US selections and then Sandy Hook

It is impossible for anyone researching hoaxes and con plots (to avoid the word "conspiracies") to have missed all the work done by others about space.

Mathis has taken the path of the "Breakthrough Science" (abbreviated: BS) and built such an enormous amount using -at least partly- claims by NASA. Even in case he later realized that he was wrong; i.e. he discovered that NASA is just as much fake as Nukes and other hoaxes, he 'couldn't' go back anymore; the whole foundation below his BS would have been swept away, making him look like a 'fool' and lose his audience.

An honest person would say "Sorry, I was wrong all the time, I based my ideas on a false idea and source, please let me start with a clean slate".

And there the misdirections started; he didn't do that, yet continued his journey deeper and deeper into the BS.

Two things in the quoted pieces by Seneca are also clear:- he uses the most mainstream "news source" for that "the tapes are erased" piece, in his Nuke hoax paper, published late in his research history (January this year!) and what he does is assuming that his audience is somehow stupid with his "no kidding". To the sharp reader it only shows how sloppy he is himself, referring to 'news' of 6.5 years old- he never in those quotes in the Trinity article rejects NASA as a source and not even confirms the Apollo landings to be a complete fake. His hoax papers contain a lot of photo analysis, but what he could have done there, he could have done in a NASA paper too; it could have been a short one, in Mathis time only a couple of minutes (for other writers and researchers who take more time to avoid just that BS downfall a couple of days), to show what his stance is, but he has never done that, with the exception of a paper on SpaceX, also late, not even 2 months ago

To me it makes that he is not honest, too arrogant to admit his mistakes and too afraid to lose an audience that pays him to paint portraits; his (alleged?) source of income.

The "electrical universe" idea may or may not be true, but the problem is that to make that claim or draw that conclusion, one needs data. Data from space. And honest open-minded researchers, as I have read here for so long, know that that data is impossible to gather and the data there is, is fake.

I would stay away from that idea then, but Miles did the exact opposite; he thought he avoided looking like a fool, but he did just that.

Last edited by Vera Obscurata on October 11th, 2016, 2:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I'm not going to get into a debate about Pi=4, since that thread is on lockdown and the subject verboten, but I do want to reply to a couple of points here that don't have anything to do directly with the question of the value of Pi:

You write that:

The whole basis of the idea that “pi=4 in kinematic situations” stems from an incredibly unconvincing source; Wernher von Braun (via another well-known liar; Richard C. Hoagland). What Mathis describes is that “rockets were pictured in the wrong place; 21% off” giving Mathis the insight to this idea and he presents us with long papers and lots of text why that would be.

I will assume that you've just made a mistake here rather than a deliberate misrepresentation, but this assertion is simply, demonstrably false. The whole idea that pi=4 in kinematic situations did not stem from Braun or Hoagland or anything like that. You will notice that the paper you and Simon are referencing is pi4.html. If you read the pi4.html paper that Simon links to, it's quite clear that was his fourth paper on pi (hence pi4.html). That means he had already written 3 other papers, wherein he explains how he hit upon the notion that pi=4 in kinematic situations, which occurred many years earlier when he was reworking Newton and the orbital velocity equation.

If you go back and look at his updates, you'll see he published the pi4 paper in 2010, and you'll see on his pi2 paper was originally published in 2008. It is not clear to me when his first paper on pi was published but clearly before the 2nd paper. So you couldn't be more wrong about the provenance of his idea for pi=4. Of course, I can see how anybody who had not read really read his papers could easily think your statement was true.

In this context it is rather ironic to note what you wrote in your handshake: "A common factor in the way the hoaxsters are presenting their stories is by leaving out crucial elements; trying to convince people of "truth" by not telling the truths."

Now, one thing that can be said is that Miles turns to NASA's rocket errors to support his argument in this pi4.html paper, and you might conclude that is damning enough. But note that his pi4.html paper was written in 2010. If you look at the threads here in cluesforum on NASA fakery, most or many of them were started after that or around the same time. The 'do rockets work in a vacuum' thread only started in 2013. So you're basically saying that he should be judged based on what he said about NASA and rockets back in 2010. That would be like judging somebody who wrote back in 2002 that 9/11 was a false flag but planes really hit the WTC buildings.

What's more, you'll see if you actually read the pi4 paper that he trashes Hoagland and says NASA appears to be trying to cover something up. He doesn't come right out an say it's all a big hoax, but remember he was writing this back in 2010 before most of this was more widely known and also, as far as I can tell, before he had really become much of a conspiracy researcher. So, no Seneca, it isn't a sign of two people, just one person with evolving views.

Finally, he has said very clearly that he doesn't believe in the Nuke hoax, the ISS, Space-X and from Seneca's comments, we can conclude that he doesn't believe in the moon landings either. Since he doesn't feel the need to repeat other people's research unless he has something to add to the debate, so you cannot assume his silence on some topic means acceptance. If you want to know his current opinion on these matters, you could e-mail him.

Another statement you made was:

What Mathis lacks, and Kham and Simon have done in this topic, is using simple diagrams to explain things for the layman. Mathis, and VexMan and daddie_o follow that method, uses words to describe physics and that choice makes it much harder to understand what he is talking about.

I see that as a deliberate action to confuse; with the alleged intelligence of Mathis it shouldn’t be any problem to give a “step-by-step, well-explained graphic tutorial for dummies” to follow his idea of “pi=4 in kinematic situations”, yet he doesn’t do that.

But just a little further down in the very same post you put one of the many, many diagrams that Miles has included in his paper:

2 - Mathis claims that pi=4 is only valid for kinematic situations, but at the same time tries to “prove” that using a static situation; the zig-zag pattern of the cube shown here:

So which is it? He doesn't use diagrams so he's trying to confuse? Or you don't like the way he uses them so he's trying to confuse? Or have you considered the possibility that your confusion has nothing to do with his use of diagrams?

Finally, your last comment:

One phrase used by daddie_o however is strange and untrue:

And since physics is applied math, if you aren't applying the math correctly you're going to get wrong answers.

This is exactly the other way around; physics is the basis, math is “only” the language to describe it. Not “physics is applied math”, but “math is a language used to describe physics”.

This is easily explained: you and I have different definitions of physics. For me, physics is a scientific discipline that tries to describe the physical world with applied math. For you, "physics" refers to that physical world. See? Nothing strange about it.

Finally, a question: you said in your most recent post we it is impossible to gather data from space. By that do you mean that our observations from Earth of outer space are impossible? That it is impossible to look up into the sky at night or gather data from earth-based Satellites on the planets and beyond? Is that what you're saying? If so, could you please point me to the thread where the "honest open-minded" researchers of CF have argued this?

Oh, and Welcome Vera Obscurata! I forgot to officially welcome you in my previous post, which was evidently submitted within mere seconds of your own. I'll now refer to you as VO if that's alright by you?And please feel free to use SCS in return.

daddie_o, if you read my last post closely, I added a link to the SpaceX "discovery" published a mere 6 weeks ago, you can see that in order to make any claim about "space"/kinematic movements and orbits (and thus pi=4) you need data. Data from space. That data doesn't exist.

It's even worse if he uses NASA as a source "who covers up something" in 2010, 2 years into his research about that pi=4 idea. By then, a lot of material was available. The first books about the faked Apollo landings were published in the 1970s. The fake Mars landings were questioned right from the start. And then there is the possibility to not use other's material, but actually think for yourself, something Mathis boasts about but apparently fails to do.

Nowhere have I said that looking into space (using the many ground-based telescopes on Earth) is impossible. It is actually the only source there is, but that is not "space data"; not data from space, but Earth data looking into space and through the atmosphere.

It's true that Mathis has used some diagrams. What I criticize him for, also explained in my first post, is the absence of a step-by-step tutorial for dummies leaving no space for confusion. If you could show me that, I drop my point.

I said:

This is exactly the other way around; physics is the basis, math is “only” the language to describe it. Not “physics is applied math”, but “math is a language used to describe physics”.

This is easily explained: you and I have different definitions of physics. For me, physics is a scientific discipline that tries to describe the physical world with applied math.

Here you write more-or-less what I also did; the math is the description. But that is not what you said in your original post; "physics is applied math". That phrase says "the basis is math, physics is just the application of it".

For you, "physics" refers to that physical world. See? Nothing strange about it.

Yes, it is strange that you twist my words and conclude what physics is "for me".

SacredCowSlayer » October 11th, 2016, 6:58 am wrote:Oh, and Welcome Vera Obscurata! I forgot to officially welcome you in my previous post, which was evidently submitted within mere seconds of your own. I'll now refer to you as VO if that's alright by you?And please feel free to use SCS in return.

Also, it's times like this where I miss Painterman. He could always peg the exact forum disruption tactics with precision, and I enjoyed reading his layout of such. But I digress.

Do you?

Besides all you've written in that particular post, which is just more fog in my humble opinion, the second sentence is just priceless. Of all my internet/digital presence and my usual incognito mode of searching, researching and learning, to get accused of forum disruption tactics.... Thanks man, really. I digress.

Vera Obscurata » October 10th, 2016, 7:35 pm wrote:3 - The whole basis of the idea that “pi=4 in kinematic situations” stems from an incredibly unconvincing source; Wernher von Braun (via another well-known liar; Richard C. Hoagland). What Mathis describes is that “rockets were pictured in the wrong place; 21% off” giving Mathis the insight to this idea and he presents us with long papers and lots of text why that would be.

The problem is that Wernher von Braun is an unreliable source for anything. Being the main proponent of faked Space Travel, his comments cannot be taken seriously.

I think Londoners of 1944 would agree with you perfectly. That is unless you are implying there was no bombing of London with V1 and V2 rockets carrying 2 tonnes of explosives with them. There is a thread here on CF about whether even that was a hoax, you can read it for yourself here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1435&hilit=V2+von+braun#p2375489, yet it is unconvincing and lacks solid evidence. I googled a nice short video where few launches of those V2 rockets can be observed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN4M1p_tTKU , and here where a Spitfire is chasing and shooting down a V1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKZpUvz4MZo. There are some people in this forum that could analyze these videos to confirm the authenticity of what they represent - a rocket taken into low orbit and a Spitfire shooting down a V1 from the sky. I would presume, if both things are true - V1&V2 London bombings of 1944 and the videos showing V1 & V2 rockets as historic facts (some people from the thread linked above claim to have confirmed it, but don't trust me, read for yourself) -> that somebody had to know physics to a certain degree to achieve all of this. Could it be that it was Werner?

I'm not interested in Von Braun's post WWII career with the US fascists here, we are looking at him while he made his reputation as a rocket scientist that US wanted to recruit for whatever reasons. It is just unbelievable easy to dismiss a guy such as Von Braun and to say he is unreliable source for anything. It merely few strokes on the keyboard, isn't it?

Would you care, as boldly as you made your statements, to bring into this thread something with substantial written and visual content/value and confirm what you claim is true?

For the mods around here, I believe there can be some true unmanned missions achieved by using rockets to put some load into low orbits, but I don't believe in Moon travel and any manned missions made at this moment. Do I deserve a ban from here?

PS : our daddie_o is the next fool to go. Hey, daddie, before you go - what's up with this statement of yours - over at the Pi=4 thread?

daddie_o wrote:"I did get an answer from Miles about Simon's question, but I am now certain that the answer is B (and am also certain that is what Miles would answer)."viewtopic.php?p=2401821#p2401821

Sooo... you DID get an answer from Miles? Really? Aaand? Why won't you share MM's answer with us, daddie? Are your e-mails with MM shrouded in secrecy?

Good grief... house-cleaning time, folks. Should have got down to it last week (or earlier still). I sure am dreadfully lazy !

On a more serious note now: I hope all earnest / honest forum readers will appreciate my preferred 'moderating strategy' - i.e. to let the occasional trolls infiltrating this forum linger here for a while - so as to let them ultimately expose themselves with their own words and antics, rather than promptly banning them as soon as some 'hint of legitimate suspicion' arises as to their true agenda. I believe that, over the years, we have learned a LOT about the workings & strategies of the Nutwork's "counter-intelligence" department. To be sure, NASA's "Moon Landing" propaganda crew - for instance - has been at it ever since 1969 - and Cluesforum only came to be in 2009 - forty friggin' years later!

If I may interject (as it had been on my mind to do)... In one of Mathis' recent papers on Karen Carpenter, (page 3) he drops the name of a man who attended his conference by the name of Mark Tokarski.

Yep, this guy is claiming Freddie Mercury is Dr. Phil, among other sketchy claims; and, so, it was of great interest to myself that this guy was linking to Clues Forum - with Daddie O as one of his fervent supporters. At that time, I thought to test the waters (as it was easy enough to post without great pains), and simply ask about the apparent height difference in these men, for which I was immediately excoriated (and accused of being intel) by Tokarski, and, later Daddie O, himself (though Daddie O did have the good graces to edit his comments after he -possibly- saw my handshake). Even so, still wishing to give these fellows the benefit of the doubt, I decided to check out their other fellow in good standing, Straight from the Devil's Mouth, who enjoys making lists with big pictures.

daddie_o wrote:"I did get an answer from Miles about Simon's question, but I am now certain that the answer is B (and am also certain that is what Miles would answer)."

Sooo... you DID get an answer from Miles? Really? Aaand? Why won't you share MM's answer with us, daddie? Are your e-mails with MM shrouded in secrecy?

Simon, since you are waiting to ban me until I answer your question about Miles’s response, I will satisfy your burning curiosity so you can get it out of the way. But first I want to make some remarks.

First to VonCrowne: your assertion that I edited a comment on the http://pieceofmindful.com blog is a bald-faced lie. I do contribute there, but it is Mark's blog, and I don’t have any administrative or editorial privileges and so cannot edit my comments. As for your comments about the research that Mark and Straight have done there, I welcome anybody reading this to go check it out. The work stands on its own and is sure to astound you, even if only 1/10th of the discoveries they’ve made are true.

To Vera Obscurata (VO): your “arguments” are just laughable and not even worth another .

To Simon:

It would not surprise me in the least if you deleted this post. It would fit with your general censorship at CF. There is no need to ban me, as you can rest assured this will be my last post here. The veil has been lifted, and I can see this forum for what it really is: a nest of misdirection cleverly disguised as a forum for “truth-seekers” who are far ahead of the conspiracy curve and willing to ask any question and pursue any truth to the end. You have exposed much truth here, to be sure, but your heavy-handed censorship and stifling of reasoned dissent has made it clear that certain topics are off limits. You are not prepared to ask all questions or pursue all truths.

Anybody reading this who isn’t a member of Simon’s goon squad should really ask themselves why certain topics are off limits and why Simon was so quick to lockdown the thread on Pi and to ban VexMan and, soon, myself (which I accept as a badge of honor). You should ask yourself whether this squelching of speech and reasoned debate might have a sort of chilling effect on the range of discourse “permitted” at CluesForum. It was none other than that font of misdirection known as Noam Chomsky who spelled out the formula of modern thought control: limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. CluesForum follows the same recipe, but it’s hard to see until you bang up against those limits. Just search the forum for the word “banned” and you’ll begin to get a sense.

First of all, the notion that you closed it down to “defuse any escalation of the most uncalled-for name&troll-calling antics that have been going on here.” Let’s put aside for now whether the ‘antics’ were uncalled for. Putting the thread on lockdown to de-escalate was a massive and unecessary overreaction. If you gave a rat’s ass about free and open debate you would have found a better way to remedy the problem. For example, you could have given us a warning telling us to tone it down ‘or else.’ That would have been a reasonable response. But instead you slapped a gag order on the thread and put it on lockdown like it was Boston after the hoaxathon. You know, tickets from Rome to Israel are not that expensive. You could have just hopped on a plane and come put some duct tape over my mouth yourself. Getting to Slovenia is even cheaper. I’m sure VexMan would be thrilled to see you.

Closing the thread was also hypocritical. You and your cronies don’t hesitate to mock and heap scorn upon people you disagree with. You can dish it out, but you suddenly rush in and start banning people when your orthodoxy is being attacked. You guys have itchy trigger fingers when it comes to calling out ‘typical troll behavior’ except when it’s your side acting like trolls.

Also hypocritical is the notion that you put the thread on lockdown to give ‘earnest readers and contributors a well-deserved mindfuck break.’ Seriously? I didn’t know anybody was being tied down and their eyelids propped open, forced to read the thread. If people don’t want the mindfuck, as you call it, they don’t have to read the thread. Or maybe we should thank you for protecting the delicate sensitivities of Cluesforum readers! What would we do without you, dear leader?

You have complained in the past that “Our 9/11 research has been ostracized, banned and censored from most 9/11 “truther” forums and websites.” Yet here you go doing the same to others. Apparently questioning whether rockets work in a vacuum or whether new personalities are CGI creations does not count as a mindfuck, though for most people both ideas are unfathomable. Apparently only some mindfucks are officially sanctioned by dear leader, Simon Shack. You have decided what counts as truth and what doesn’t. And hey, it’s your site you can do what you want. But don’t pretend to be an open-minded truth-seeker, because you are anything but.

As for “uncalled for” name&troll-calling tactics, consider the following: imagine having a conversation with somebody who insisted that 9/11 was a false flag but there really were planes and people really died. And you say ‘watch my video and read our research, you’ll see it was all faked.’ He responds ‘that’s crazy, what a preposterous idea.’ And you say, ‘no, really, watch the video, look at all the evidence we’ve compiled.’ And he resists. Refuses to watch September Clues or read any of your copious research but still keeps arguing with you, telling you that you must be mistaken. What would you conclude? That he’s a troll.

If he then agreed to watch a few minutes of something and you showed him that part in September Clues where you see split footage of the second plane coming in at totally different angles. Yet he insisted that it was the same angle, even though anybody can see with their own eyes that’s not true. What would you conclude? That he’s a troll.

And if he then agreed it appeared different but insisted that the difference was due to parallax or had to do with using different camera models. Imagine you patiently explained to him why those explanations don’t hold water, but he insisted it was those explanations or some combination of ‘whatever’ that explained it. What would you conclude? That he’s a troll.

Well that’s exactly what MongoApe did in our ‘debate’ about Pi issue. I concluded, naturally and quite justifiably, that he’s a troll. And it is clear that VO is cut from the same cloth but with a very slight IQ advantage over Mongo.

In fact, I find it quite interesting that both Mongo and VO registered for the forum within a week of each other, and both of them said they specifically registered to comment on the Pi thread. From my experience on other sites, nothing brings the trolls out of the woodwork like a post that speaks positively about Miles’s physics work. Why the deliberate but obvious attempt to discredit that work? It makes you wonder if maybe they’re trying to hide something really important.

Given that your excuses for shutting down the forum are lame in the extreme, I can only conclude that you did so out of desperation, since it was clear that nobody could offer a single substantive critique of Miles’s body of work on Pi. Just lots of trollish antics and strawman arguments. And now you’re trying to fling every possible accusation at him and at us, hoping something will stick. The disinformation tactics on display here are a sight to behold. They’re also, I’m afraid to tell you, completely transparent.

You present yourself as a friendly, open minded, free-thinker with a towering intellect. But you have revealed yourself to be just the opposite: a sad little man with a vile personality; a close-minded authoritarian with a pea-sized brain. I admit that for a while your masterpiece, September Clues, had me fooled. But now I can see it was clearly a one-off, assuming it was even your work. You surround yourself with pompous sycophants and bully anyone who dissents with your established orthodoxy because you are too wrapped up in your own ego to consider that you might, just might, be wrong about something. When challenged you are quick to hurl insults, but God forbid somebody should even hint that maybe, just maybe, it is you who is—to use one of your favorite epithets—fecking stoopid. And when you’re out of ammunition, you lock down the discussion and ban those who challenge your orthodoxy. Pathetic.

Assuming you allow this post to stay up, which I sincerely doubt, I suppose you will reply. I want you to know that I’m not going to read it. I’m done with this place. You might as well piss in the wind.

Finally, to answer your question about what Miles answered me in his e-mail: I will tell you that he did not answer the question. As for what else he wrote, well, unlike you, I don’t share private e-mails in a public forum, so you’re just going to have to write him and ask him yourself what the answer is. Who knows, he might even deign to answer. But don’t be surprised if he ignores you; he saw through you long before I did.

First to VonCrowne: your assertion that I edited a comment on the http://pieceofmindful.com blog is a bald-faced lie. I do contribute there, but it is Mark's blog, and I don’t have any administrative or editorial privileges and so cannot edit my comments.

Either you or Tokarski manipulated the conversation that remains there. Apparently, Tokarski, having absolutely nothing better to do (as we see with the deletion of the CF link, and my personal experience with him deleting comments within five minutes or less) is quick on the damage control; either you or Tokarski, it makes no difference to me.

The work stands on its own and is sure to astound you, even if only 1/10th of the discoveries they’ve made are true.

"I'm now a bit annoyed / embarrassed to have provided (for a short while) a discussion platform for the MM science clown - but I guess this all goes with the nature of our forum - which encourages a wide aperture of everyone's brains... that is, as long as those brains don't fall out of their skulls !"

I agree with both points. This crap (in hindsight) may be embarrassing, but ironically it allowed this MM creature to be exposed. And for that I am thankful.

Good job on giving them more rope than you probably wanted to, and sparing just enough to let them hang themselves.

It is in that spirit that I now humbly suggest that this title be changed to "Deconstructing (or Disassembling) Miles Mathis".

If the title remains as is, the "harm" may be a DBA effect (Flat Earth style) on CF readers who are sent here by people like myself. Sorry to always be picking on the titles. But I really can't help myself.